Comments

  1. Well, he seems like a reasonable enough and nice enough guy at the start however as he goes on…
    He mentions “special interest groups”. Does he mean The Gays? The Chinese?
    I’m starting to get worried now.
    Then he claims money is being spent for “pet projects of the mayor”.
    I’m now even more worried. At this point he just seems insincere or that he’s trying to snow us.
    His example of a “not well thought out” bike lane is the very well planned and well though out design for the health precinct. He claims that there was a lot of opposition. Does he mean the opposition that was created and fomented by the NPA after all the stakeholders had found common ground?
    I agree with him that bikes should not be a wedge issue and I hope that someday the NPA will stop making them into that. Doesn’t look like it though.
    He then claims that the small amount spent in the last ten years on cycling infrastructure is “a tremendous amount”. If only. It’s still less than the mode share.
    He then implies that it should not be spent on an “ideological basis”. So the transportation needs of a large part of the populace is ideological? Now he’s just sounding classist. Just what ideology is he talking about anyway? The desire to get from point A to point B?
    Cycling infrastructure that doesn’t ruffle any feathers tends to be low quality. I don’t know about the rest of you but I certainly don’t want to go back to the days of door zone lanes and sharrows.

  2. In October of 2012, park board commissioners voted on the adoption of, and an implementation strategy for, the Stanley Park Cycling Plan. That was after much work and public consultation. The motion passed. Commissioners Coupar and De Genova were the two who voted against it.
    We are still waiting for the recommendations of that plan from 2012 to be implemented, despite an approved budget.
    Voting history should matter.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *